A Comparative Study of
Romans 13:8-14 and Matthew 22:34-40
by
Endale Sebsebe Mekonnen
Dissertation presented for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in the Faculty of
Theology at Stellenbosch University
Supervisor: Prof Jeremy Punt
Co-Supervisor: Prof Marius Johannes Nel
ii
Declaration
By submitting this dissertation electronically, I declare that the entire work is my original work, that I am the sole author therefore (save to the extent explicitly otherwise stated), that reproduction and publication thereof by Stellenbosch University will not infringe any third party rights and that I have not previously in its entirety or in part submitted it for obtaining any qualification.
Endale Sebsebe Mekonnen
March 2017
Copyright © 2017 Stellenbosch University All rights reserved
iii
Abstract
Previous studies on Romans 13:8-14 and Matthew 22:34-40 have indicated the centrality of love therein while downplaying the role of the Law in the two documents. These studies also did not consider the role of Romans 13:8-14 and Matthew 22:34-40 within the overall arguments of the two books and in respect to their specific communities of Jesus followers. To date, there has also not been a study specifically devoted to comparing these two texts in order to investigate the role of the Law in their different communities of Jesus followers. This research aims to fill this lacuna in New Testament studies.
This study analyses the respective rhetorical units in Romans and Matthew in order to examine the role of the Law in the identity formation process of the Jesus followers as they saw it. It attempts to answer two specific research questions: (1) What is the role of the summary of the Law in Romans 13:8-14 and Matthew 22:34-40? (2) What are Paul’s and Matthew’s positions in regard to the role of the Law according to the letter to the Romans and the Gospel of Matthew?
This study utilised the socio-rhetorical method developed by Vernon Robbins. However, only two aspects of his multidisciplinary approach, namely the study of the inner- and the intertexture are used. A text-focused hermeneutical approach is employed due to the length of the respective books and the complexity of the issues they raise. The argumentative texture of Romans 13:8-14 focusses on the underlying assumptions of the argument, the presupposed audience and the relationship between the Law and love. The study of Matthew 22:34-40 investigated the repetitive texture, the topical progression of νομός and ἁγάπη, the narrative pattern, and the opening, middle and closing argumentative texture of Matthew 22:34-40. The intertextual study investigated the intertexture of Romans 13:8-14 and Matthew 22:34-40 to the Hebrew Bible, LXX, and Second Temple Jewish and Greco-Roman literature. The texts were also compared to discern the convergence and divergence of the two books (Romans and Matthew) on specific topics. Finally, the role of Romans 13:8-14 and Matthew 22:34-40 was investigated and analysed.
The research findings on Romans 13:8-14 and Matthew 22:34-40 is that for Jesus followers, Romans 13:8-14 and Matthew 22:34-40 present the commandments of the Law under the name of love to shape their perceptible identity. To love God or one’s neighbour means ultimately to obey the commandments of the Law. It is the commandments of the Law that are actually practised under the name of love, for love is avoiding evil and doing good as prescribed in the commandments of the Law. Furthermore, the
iv
research concluded that the Gospel of Matthew is not an anti-Pauline text, instead the two texts converge in important aspects of the Law while the divergence is accounted for in their specific genre and concern.
v Opsomming
Vorige studies van Romeine 13:8-14 en Matteus 22:34-40 het op verskillende wyses op die sentraliteit van die liefde in beide geskrifte gewys en minder klem op die rol van die Wet geplaasHulle neem ook nie die plek van Romeine 13:8-14 en Matteus 22:34-40 in ag binne die algemene argumente van die twee boeke en in hul spesifieke gemeenskap van Jesus-volgelinge nie. Daar bestaan nog nie navorsing wat hierdie twee tekste vergelyk, ten einde die rol van die Wet in die verskillende gemeenskappe Jesus-volgelinge te kan ondersoek nie. Hierdie studie beoog om die gaping in Nuwe Tesament-studies aan te spreek.
Die studie ontleed die twee retoriese eenhede in Romeine en Mattheus, met die doel om die rol van die Wet in die identiteitsvorming van Jesus-volgelinge, soos vanuit hul perspektief, in Romeine en Matteus te ondersoek. Dit sal verder onderneem word na aanleiding van twee spesifieke navorsingsvrae: (1) Wat is die rol van die opsomming van die Wet in Romeinse 13:8-14 en Matteus 22:34-40? (2) Wat is Paulus en Matteus se posisies met betrekking tot die rol van die Wet in hul onderskeie geskrifte?
Die studie sal gebruikmaak van die sosio-retoriese metode soos ontwikkel deur Vernon Robbins. Daar sal egter slegs geselekteerde aspekte van sy voorgestelde multidimensionele metode benut word te wete die intra- en inter-tekstuur van die tekste. ‘n Teks-gefokusde hermeneutiese benadering sal verder in die studie benut word as gevolg van die omvang van die twee dokumente wat ondersoek word en die kompleksiteit van die kwessies wat hulle aanspreek. Die argumentatiewe tekstuur van Romeine 13:8-14 spreek die aannames onderliggend aan die argument aan, die veronderstelde gehoor daarvan en die verhouding tussen die Wet en die liefde. Die studie van Matteus 22:34-40 sal ‘n soortgelyke benadering volg deurdat dit op die herhalende tekstuur, die progressie rondom die onderwerpe van νομός en ἁγάπη, die narratiewe patrone, en die begin, middel en slot van die argumentatiewe tekstuur van Matteus 22:34-40 sal let. Daar sal ook ‘n analise van die inter-tekstuur van Romeine 13:8-14 en Matteus 22:34-22:34-40 in die Hebreeuse Bybel, LXX, Tweede Tempel Joodse en Grieks-Romeinse literatuur onderneem word. Die twee tekse wat ondersoek is, is verder vergelyk ten opsigte van die konvergensie en divergensie van die twee boeke (Romeine en Matteus) aan die hand van spesifieke temas. Ten slotte is die rol van Romeine 13:8-14 en Matteus 22:34-40 ondersoek en ontleed.
Die bevinding van die navorsing ten opsigte van Romeine 13:8-14 en Matteus 22:34-40 is dat dit vir die Jesus-volgelinge die bevele van die Wet onder die naam van die liefde saamgesnoer het ten einde hul unieke identiteit te vorm. Om God, of jou naaste lief te hê, beteken eintlik om die bepalings van die Wet
vi
te gehoorsaam. Dit is hierdie bepalings van die Wet wat beoefen moet word onder die naam van die liefde, want die liefde vermy die kwaad en doen eerder goeie dade soos wat deur die Wet voorgeskryf word. Verder het die navorsing tot die gevolgtrekking gekom dat die Evangelie van Matteus nie 'n anti-Pauliniese teks is nie. Die twee tekste konvergeer naamlik ten opsigte van belangrike aspekte van die Wet, terwyl die divergensie tussen hulle aan hul verskillende genres en temas.
vii
Acknowledgements
I owe my deepest gratitude to my supervisors Prof. Jeremy Punt and Prof. Marius Nel. Without their continued optimism concerning this work, insightful comments, gentle critique, encouragement, guidance and support, this study would hardly have been completed. I would also like to thank both my supervisors for providing me ample room to express my own voice. Therefore, for all the shortcomings in this study, I take full responsibility.
I owe a great debt of gratitude to Shiloh Bible College Ethiopia and Fire Over Africa for granting me study leave and covering all my tuition, transportation, living expenses and one-year accommodation. I would like to thank Dr. Gary Munson, the president of Shiloh Bible College Ethiopia who supported me in his prayers throughout the years of my study, for his encouragement and advice and for raising the funds for my studies.
I am also deeply grateful to George Whitefield College and Evangelical Research Fellowship in South Africa for granting me a bursary for accommodation, auspicious study facilities and a convenient environment where I could combine both rigorous academic work and a Christian walk.
I am indebted to many of my colleagues who prayed, encouraged me and extended their warm fellowship to dispel my loneliness created by the many days of isolation from my family.
Lastly, not least, my special gratitude goes to Meskerm Asefa, my wife, for lifting all family burdens from me and carrying all the responsibility of caring for our children, and for being patient with me while I was away, and for prayer and encouragementwithout ceasing in all the different seasons of my studies. I would also like to express my deepest appreciation to my children, Abiah, Amanuel, Elsa, Samuel and Selam for their prayers and understanding.
viii
List of Abbreviations
General
BCE Before Common Era
CD The Cairo Damascus Document CE Common Era
KJV King James Version
LN Louw and Nida Greek-English Lexicon (in Bibleworks) LXX Septuagint (Ancient Greek Translation of the Old Testament) MT Masoretic Text
Matt Matthew
NAB New American Bible NAS New American Standard NIV New International Version NPP New Perspective on Paul
RNPP Radical New Perspective on Paul NT New Testament
OT Old Testament Rom Romans
RSV Revised Standard Version SM The Sermon on the Mount TGL Thayer’s Greek Lexcon v. verse
vs. verses
ix Table of Contents
Declaration ... ii
Abstract ... iii
Acknowledgements ... vii
List of Abbreviations ... viii
Table of Contents ... ix
List of Tables ... xv
Chapter 1 ... 1
Introduction ... 1
1.1 Background ... 1
1.2 The Research Question and Delimitation ... 6
1.3 Studies on the Summary of the Law ... 7
1.3.1 Romans 13:8-14-The summary of the Law ... 7
1.3.1.1 Accentuating the centrality of love and the continuity of the Law ... 8
1.3.1.2 Replacing the Mosaic Law ... 9
1.3.1.3 Radically reducing but never abrogating the Law ... 10
1.3.1.4 Supplementing the paraenesis with information ... 11
1.3.1.5 Conclusion ... 12
1.3.2 Matthew 22:34-40- The Summary of the Law ... 12
1.3.2.1 The essence and interpretive principle of the Law ... 12
1.3.2.2 Conclusion ... 15
1.3.3 Paul and Matthew on the Law: comrades or foes? ... 15
1.3.4 Section Conclusion ... 18
1.4 Terminology ... 18
1.4.1 Torah (νόμος) Law ... 18
1.4.2 Identity and Boundaries ... 19
1.4.3 Morals, Ethics and Ethos ... 20
1.5 Presupposition of the Research ... 21
1.6 Hypothesis ... 22
x
1.8 Purpose and Contribution ... 24
1.9 Research Design ... 24
Chapter 2 ... 26
Rom 13:8-10: Inner Texture Analysis ... 26
2.1 Introduction ... 26
2.2 Rom 13: 8-10: Repetitive Texture Analysis ... 26
2.3 Rom 13:8-10: Topical Progression Analysis... 28
2.3.1 Topical Progression of ἀγάπη in Romans ... 29
2.3.1.1 Rom 5:5 and 8 ... 29
2.3.1.2 Rom 8:28, 35, 37 and 39 ... 30
2.3.1.3 Rom 12:9 ... 36
2.3.1.4 Section summary and conclusion ... 38
2.3.2. Topical Progression of νόμος in Romans ... 38
2.3.2.1 ἀνόμως andχωρὶς νόμου – without the Law ... 41
2.3.2.1.1 Rom 2:12a: the existence of sin and death ... 41
2.3.2.1.2 Rom 3:21, 28: righteousness without the Law ... 44
2.3.2.1.2.1 χωρὶς νόμου δικαιοσύνη θεοῦ (3:21) ... 44
2.3.2.1.2.2 χωρὶς ἔργων νόμου (3:28) ... 46
2.3.2.1.3 Rom 4:15b: no Law, no transgression ... 49
2.3.2.1.4 Rom 5:13a-14: the reign of sin and death ... 51
2.3.2.1.5 Rom 5:13b: no Law, no reckoning of sin ... 55
2.3.2.1.6 Rom 7:8b-9a: a dead ἁμαρτία and a living ἐγὼ ... 57
2.3.2.1.7 Section summary and conclusion ... 62
2.3.2.2 ἐν νόμῳ and ὑπὸ νόμον- under the Law ... 62
2.3.2.2.1 Sin and death under the Law (Rom 2: 12; 5:20; 7:14-15) ... 62
2.3.2.2.2 Rom 2: 17-24: The Law embodying knowledge and truth ... 65
2.3.2.2.3 Christ the τέλος of the Law ... 66
2.3.2.2.4 Section Summary and Conclusion ... 68
2.3.2.3. οἱ ποιηταὶ νόμου- doers of the Law ... 68
2.3.2.3.1 Rom 2: 12-16: The Law in the heart of believing Gentiles ... 69
xi
2.3.2.3.3 Rom 3:31: upholding the Law ... 76
2.3.2.3.4 Rom 8:4: fulfilling the requirement of the Law ... 80
2.3.2.3.5 Section summary and conclusion ... 82
2.4 Chapter Conclusion and Implication for the Interpretation of 13:8-14 ... 83
Chapter 3 ... 85
Romans 13:8-14: Analysis of Argumentative Texture ... 85
3.1 Introduction ... 85
3.2 Establishing the Rhetorical Unit: structure, context and inner logical movement of 13:8-14 ... 85
3.3 Translation Issues: ὀφείλετε (13:8a), εἰ μὴ (13:8b), ἕτερον (13:8c), and ἡ ἀγάπη (13:10)... 87
3.4 Analysing the Argument of the Unit (13:8-10) ... 89
3.4.1 Identifying the Identity: ἀλλήλους, τὸν ἕτερον and πλησίον ... 89
3.4.2 Investigating Claims, Reasons and Unnstated Assumptions of 13:8-10 ... 96
3.4.2.1 Assumption # 1: Jesus followers should fulfil the Law ... 97
3.4.2.2 Assumption # 2: All the commandments of the Law are about doing right to a neighbour ... 98
3.4.2.3 All the commandments of the Law prohibit doing wrong to a neighbour ... 99
3.4.3 Section conclusion ... 100
3.5 Comparing the Key Concepts: ἀγάπη and νόμος in 13:8-14 ... 100
3.6 Chapter Summary and Conclusion ... 107
Chapter 4 ... 109
Matthew 22:34-40: Inner Texture Analysis ... 109
4.1 Introduction ... 109
4.2 Matthew 22:34-40: Repetitive Texture ... 109
4.3 Matthew 22:34-40: Analysis of Topical Progression ... 111
4.3.1 Topical Progression of νόμος in the Gospel of Matthew ... 111
4.3.1.1 No abolition but rather fulfilling the Law (οὐκ καταλῦσαι ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι) ... 113
4.3.1.1.1 μὴ νομίσητε (5:17a) ... 114
4.3.1.1.2 οὐκ καταλῦσαι [τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας] (5:17b) ... 116
4.3.1.1.3 ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι τὸν νόμον ἢ τοὺς προφήτας (5:17c) ... 118
4.3.1.2 No reduction but effectuating all (Matt 5:18-19) ... 124
xii
4.3.1.2.2 Scope of the Law: Matt 5:18c and d ... 125
4.3.1.2.3 Keeping the Sabbath: Matt 12:1-14, 24:20 & 28:1 ... 126
4.3.1.2.4 Purity, vows and tithes (Matt 15:1-20; 23:23) ... 132
4.3.1.2.5 Divorce (19:3-9) ... 136
4.3.1.3 Section summary and conclusion ... 136
4.3.2 Topical Progression of ἀγάπη ... 137
4.4 Summary and Conclusion ... 141
Chapter 5 ... 142
Matthew 22:34-40: Narrational, Opening-Middle-Closing and Argumentative Texture ... 142
5.1 Introduction ... 142
5.2 Matthew 22:34-40: Narrational Texture and Pattern Analysis ... 142
5.3 Matthew 22:34-40 - Opening, Middle and Closing ... 147
5.4 Matthew 22:34-40 - Argumentative Texture Analysis... 147
5.4.1 Grading the Commandments: no equal weight ... 149
5.4.2 Loving God (Matt 22:37-38) ... 150
5.4.3 Loving One’s Neighbour (Matt 22:39) ... 152
5.4.4 Hanging the Law and the Prophets (Matt 22:40) ... 153
5.5 Summary and Conclusion ... 153
Chapter 6 ... 155
Comparing Romans 13:8-14 and Matthew 22:34-40: Intertexture, Concepts and Texts ... 155
6.1 Introduction ... 155
6.2 The Intertexture of Romans 13:8-14 and Matthew 22:34-40 ... 155
6.2.1 Jewish Literature ... 155
6.2.1.1 The Hebrew Bible and the LXX ... 156
6.2.1.1.1 Deuteronomy 6:5 ... 156
6.2.1.1.2 Leviticus 19:18: “Love your neighbour as yourself” ... 160
6.2.1.2 Second temple literature ... 162
6.2.1.2.1 Apocryphal and Pseudepigrapha Books ... 162
6.2.1.2.2 The Dead Sea Scrolls ... 164
xiii
6.2.1.3 Section summary and conclusion ... 165
6.2.2 Greco-Roman Literature ... 166
6.2.3 Pauline Literature ... 168
6.2.4 Section Summary and Conclusion ... 169
6.3 Comparison of Romans 13:8-14 and Matthew 22:34-44 ... 169
6.3.1 Conceptual and Thematic Comparison ... 170
6.3.1.1 Perspective on Judgement ... 170
6.3.1.2 Perspective on ἁμαρτία ... 172
6.3.1.3 Perspective on Jews and Gentiles ... 175
6.3.1.4 Perspective on ἀγάπη ... 179
6.3.1.5 Perspective on νόμος ... 179
6.3.2 Specific Texts ... 181
6.3.2.1 Rom 3:31, Rom 7:4-5, Rom 8:3-4, 7:4-5 and Rom 10:4a seen against Matt 5:17-19 ... 181
6.3.2.2 Romans 13:8-14 seen against Matthew 22:34-40 ... 182
6.3.3 Section Summary and Conclusion ... 183
6.4 Appraisal of the Interpretation of the Gospel of Matthew as anti-Pauline Text ... 183
6.5 Chapter Summary and Conclusion ... 186
Chapter 7 ... 188
The Role of Romans 13:8-14 and Matthew 22:34-40 as An Identity-Shaping Text for the Community of Jesus Followers ... 188
7.1 Introduction ... 188
7.2 Identity Theory: Relevant Key Concepts and Insights ... 188
7.3 Characters in Romans 13:8-14 ... 190
7.3.1 We, You and They ... 190
7.3.2 We/Our/Us: commonality of Jesus followers ... 191
7.3.3 “You”: status, behaviour and obligation ... 191
7.3.4 “They”: failure in status, behaviour and obligation ... 192
xiv
7.3.6 Section summary and conclusion ... 201
7.4. Characters in Matthew 22:34-40 ... 202
7.4.1 The Pharisees and the Lawyer (νομικός) ... 203
7.4.2 The Disciples and the Crowds ... 204
7.4.3 Jesus – Διδάσκαλος ... 205
7.4.4 Section Summary and Conclusion ... 208
7.5 The Role of Romans 13:8-14 and Matthew 22:34-40 ... 209
7.5.1 Attribution, Perceptible Identity and the Ultimate Prototype in Romans 13:8-14 ... 211
7.5.2 Attribution, Perceptible Identity and the Ultimate Prototype in Matthew 22:34-44 ... 215
7.6. Summary and Conclusion ... 217
Chapter 8 ... 218
Conclusion ... 218
8.1 Introduction ... 218
8.2 Contribution of Each Chapter... 218
8.3 Testing the Research Hypothesis ... 221
8.4 Cumulative Conclusions... 222
8.4.1 The Continuity of the Law ... 222
8.4.2 The Role of Romans 13:8-14 and Matthew 22:34-40 as An Identity-Shaping Text ... 222
8.4.3 Paul and Matthew ... 223
8.5 Contribution of the Study ... 224
xv
List of Tables
Table 1 Repetitive texture of Romans 13:8-10 ... 27
Table 2 Repetitive Texture in Matt 22:36-40 ... 110
Table 3 Topical Progression of νόμος, προφήτης and πληρόω ... 122
Table 4 Narrational Texture and Pattern of Matthew 22:34-40... 143
Table 5 Narrational Texture and Pattern of Matthew 22:34-40 (continued) ... 145
Table 6 Comparison of Deut 6:5 with Matthew 22:34-40 (LXX, MATT and the Gospels) ... 158
Table 7 Comparison of Rom 13:8-10 and Matthew 22:34-40 (LXX, MATT and the Gospels) ... 160
Table 8 Comparison of verses referring to judgement in Romans and Matthew ... 170
Table 9 Comparison of verses on Sin in Romans and Matthew ... 172
Table 10 Identity descriptors of Jesus' followers in Romans ... 202
Table 11 Jesus' identity descriptors in Matthew ... 207
Table 12 Identity descriptors of Jesus' followers in Matthew ... 209
Table 13 Comparison of the Law and the will of God ... 213
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Background
For centuries, the role of the Law in the New Testament has been negatively perceived or devalued, and sometimes even dismissed. A number of reasons can be given for such unwarranted perceptions; however, only three are relevant here: (1) an a priori theologically-fuelled interpretive lens; (2) a taxonomist interpretive model, and (3) a corollary of the two previous interpretations.
Since the time of Augustine (Zetterholm, 2009:58) the assumption of the distinction between grace and the Law has erected a strong fence between these two inextricably intertwined theological concepts. Particularly during the Reformation, the gap between grace and the Law continually increased until it extenuated the role of the Law from its important place in the New Testament. Suffice it to mention Tomson’s (1990:1) summary of this particular assumption on Pauline studies: “(1) the centre of his [Paul’s] thought is a polemic against the Law; (2) the Law for him no longer had a practical meaning; and (3) ancient Jewish literature is no source for explaining his letters.”
Of particular significance is Weber’s conclusion regarding Judaism as a legalistic religion as opposed to Law free Christianity, which became a paradigm for the next generation of scholars for interpreting the New Testament, not least the relationship of grace and the Law (Sanders 1977:2). Despite the protest of C.C Montefiore, George Foot Moore and Krister Stendahl, against the negative perception of Judaism, Bousset, Bultman, Käsemann , and Bornkamm, among others, ossified the perception of Judaism as a legalistic religion (Sanders, 1977:3–6; Zetterholm, 2009:69–94).Consequently, their studies established a negative interpretive lens as to the role of the Law in the New Testament because the Law is the hallmark of Judaism as legalistic religion. Using the Weber-Bousset-Billerbeck scheme as its bulwark, the a priori theological position (which Tomson denounces) has not only created a negative view of the Law but has also precluded perceiving the role of the Law beyond theological concern. For example, Ladd and Haggner (1993:539) insists that the Law must be understood in theological terms. Likewise, Hans Conzelmann (1969:221, 228) argues, “the doctrine of the Law must be understood in specifically theological terms… the whole doctrine of the Law is simply a theological interpretation”. By this, he
2
means that the role of the Law is just a disclosure of where human beings stand in relation to God1. Hence, its role is to function as a disclosure of sin, and an instrument of condemnation, wrath and death.
It cannot be objected that the Law plays such roles; however, it is only one part of the story. The theological reading, while it lays a heavy emphasis on scrutinizing the vertical role of the Law with respect to God-human relationship, downplays its horizontal role in person-to-person relationships. However, the God-human relationship cannot be seen separately from the person-to-person relationship. In fact, the role of the Law, as regulating conduct, addresses the relationship of a person-to-person relationship within its theological interpretive lens. The fact of the matter is that the theological interpretive lens sees the role of the Law from an ethical perspective - how contemporary Christians ought to act towards a fellow person. It does not question as to whether the Law had a role in constructing the first -century Jesus followers2’ ethos and identity against the ‘other’ within their contemporary social world. In so doing, an a priori theologically infused interpretation not only impairs one’s understanding of the role of the Law in its fuller sense but also severs the text from its contemporary context. It is worth noting Dunn’s (2008) caveat: there is “the danger of setting ‘social’ and ‘theological’ interpretations in antithesis, a danger to which several succumb” (Dunn, 2008:29).
The second perception is based on a taxonomist interpretive model. While the first interpretive assumption is based on an a priori theological position, influenced primarily by the interpretation of Pauline letters, the second interpretive model, a taxonomist model is influenced mainly by the interpretation of the synoptic Gospels. A taxonomist interpretive model has to do with the categorization of the synoptic Gospels into different smaller local communities as a point of departure for studying each Gospel. The inception of this model was within the redaction critical method. Redaction critics assume that the text is a direct impression of the social context and interpreters “can engage in one-to-one mapping between a body of textual details and a community profile, and that the situation of the intended readers can be read off directly from the nature of the text itself” (Donaldson, 1995:11). Judith M. Lieu (2004:13) has, however, argued that such an assumption rests on a shaky foundation. Others have also
1 I am aware of the necessity of reading the texts with the perspective of gender inclusivity in terms like “God – the father”,
and “father.” I also acknowledge the limitations and weakness of the traditional gender exclusive concept and language which do not account for feminist and postcolonial perspectives. But for the sake of convenience, I have followed Paul’s and Matthew’s conventional terminology.
2The term “Jesus-followers” is preferred over the term “Christians” in this dissertation since the term “Christian” is an
anachronist concept in regard to the NT; for the sake of consistency, the term is used throughout the dissertation and thus also in my discussion of the Pauline letters (Romans and others) even though it is not the common term used for the communities of Paul.
3
pointed out that “not all redaction critics were especially concerned with the evangelists’ community” (Bauckham, 1998:17).
The problem with the taxonomist model is not its insistence on the existence of a specific community for which each Gospel is written. Rather, what is problematic is that the taxonomist model works with the redaction criticism method, focusing on the author’s theology or understanding of the Law based on an isolated text at the expense of the wider context of the text and its role in the life of first- century Jesus followers in their social as well as religious context. For whatever reason the author understands and defines the Law, in such studies the role of the Law receives hardly any attention in regard to its definition, nature and theology. Barth (1968:63), Banks (1975), and Loader (1997) are the quintessential instances of such works on the topic of the Law in the Synoptic Gospels. Secondly, since the taxonomist model assumes virtually a homogeneous community, it downplays the place of the minority group in the community and emphasises the positions of the majority.
In the case of Matthew, it is a scholarly consensus, with minor differences, that Matthew is written for a largely Jewish-Christian community (e.g Harrington, 1991:20); which was therefore, a Law-observant community. As a result of this, the place of the Law is defined in terms of dominant members of the community. The opposite assumption functions in a similar manner: if the majority of the members are Gentiles, then it is a Law-free community. Nonetheless, such reconstructed communities are hypothetical, “many of which piled guess upon guess about specific matters for which no data remain” (Keener, 2009:45). It is argued that Gentiles are the minority in the Gospel of Matthew whereas in Romans the makeup of the community is debated (“mostly Jewish-Christian, mostly Gentile-Christian, or a balance of the two” (Witherington & Hyatt, 2004:7). Despite uncertainty regarding the dominant members in Romans, the scholarly consensus goes that the Law has an important role in the Matthean community while it has a diminished role in the letter to the Romans.
The third reason is the corollary of the above two assumptions- the importation of words such as ‘ethics’ and ‘paraenesis’ to describe the conduct praxis of the Law under either of these two terms. Philip F. Esler (2003), in his study of Rom 12-15, has shown the source of these terms and the problems they pose. Esler (2003:52) argues that the word ‘ethics’ is problematic because “in the modern world ‘ethics’ largely refers to the systematic formulation of rules for good conduct by individuals.” Since ethics is philosophically approached, such terminology does not help to deal with biblical texts mainly because the New Testament is neither a systematic reflection of the good nor a detailed description of conduct (Esler, 2003:53).
4
Esler (2003:53) argues that the Greek word ‘paraenesis’ does not appear in the New Testament. He finds that ‘paraenesis’ is used only once in the Septuagint in Wisdom 8:9. According to Esler, Martin Dibelius introduced its usage to the New Testament studies. ‘Paraenesis’ refers to “texts which string together admonitions of general ethical content” (Esler, 2003:53). Dibelius applied this term to Pauline letters with an assumption that sections like Romans 12-15 are not directly relevant to Paul’s theology. Other terms used by scholars instead of paraenesis are ‘indicatives’ and ‘imperatives’. The use of such terminology (paraenesis, indicatives and imperatives) reveal the a priori theological commitment to avoid using terms related to ‘the Law’. In the Pauline letters, one finds terms that best describe the demands in the so-called exhortation sections. For instance, έντολῶν θεοῦ (the commandments of God) (1 Cor 7:19) or πλήπωμα νὁμου (fulfillment or fullness of the Law) (Rom 13:8-10) can serve the purpose of expressing the Law’s practical roles. Importing or creating other terms which do not convey the intrinsic nature, the demands Paul lays upon the day to day life of the Jesus followers, however, is the result of the underpinning theological assumption that the Law has no role in the New Testament. Yet, the terms do not faithfully convey in either Romans, or Matthew, the role they ascribe to the Law as it is interpreted in their respective traditions.
However, recent research has demonstrated the fallacy of such assumptions – Judaism is an antithesis of the faith of Jesus’ followers and grace displaces the Law. Suffice it to mention a few influential works at points germane to the present study. Sanders (1977), following his predecessors (Montifore, Moore, and Krister Stendahl), has brought a new perspective on Judaism (Dunn, 2008:5). He has successfully shown that Judaism is not a legalistic religion, though it is different from the Pauline religion. Indeed, Sanders is often criticised for setting Judaism and Paul apart. Nonetheless, he made a great contribution to the understanding of the religion of Judaism and its relationship to the New Testament. Sanders concluded that Judaism includes the principle of covenantal nomism (covenant plus the Law). Getting into the covenant is through grace (election which is initiated by God) whereas ‘staying in’ the covenant is by obedience to the Law. It might be argued that the corollary of his conclusion is that there is no antithetical relationship but only functional differences between grace (election) and the Law.
Dunn (2008), taking his point of departure from Sanders’ conclusion, focuses his studies on the phrase “works of the Law” and argues that the phrase refers to Jewish national identity markers such as circumcision, Sabbath observance and food laws. For Dunn, the Law continues to have multiple roles in Pauline theology that run as sub-themes: the Law serves “as a measure of sin, defines sin, makes sinners conscious of their sin, [and] provides a yardstick by which sin will be judged” (Dunn, 2008:53). Dunn
5
rejects the claim that Paul has broken with the Law and insists that it still has an important role in the New Testament.
Morna Hooker (1990), pace Sanders, finds similarity between the pattern of religion of Judaism and the pattern of religion of Paul. For Hooker, Paul still functions within a covenantal nomism scheme: first he anticipates judgement in the future, therefore deeds have implication. Secondly, although righteousness is apart from the law, Paul still maintains obedience of faith as a prerequisite for membership of the Jesus movement; and thirdly, since judgement lies in the future, their way of life must be appropriate to the people of God (Hooker, 1990:163). Hooker maintains that the Law is dethroned by the death and resurrection of the Messiah because it is inadequate to justify the sinner. Thus, what is unclear with Hooker’s analysis is: what part of nomism is contained in Paul. For Sanders, nomism is the Law but Hooker does not explicitly state which part of nomism is contained in the Law, as she holds that the Law is dethroned from its function, yet insists that Paul has not broken with the Law. Hooker’s argument that a pattern of covenantal nomism still exists in the Pauline scheme is an important contribution, but is however not defined clearly enough.
Peter J. Tomson (1990:16) also acknowledges Sanders’ sublime achievements on there interpretation of Judaism, but he criticised him for studying Paul apart from Judaism. Tomson (1990:18) accentuates the practical aspect of the Law and argues, “the Law retained a practical function, as halakah taught by Jesus”. In his analysis, he observed that “for Paul ‘faith’ and ‘commandments’ are so to say on a different level and that the emphasis on faith need not exclude the observance of commandments” (Tomson, 1990:66). Tomson contends that justification by faith does not negate the existence of the practical aspect of the Law and therefore the “traditional assumptions on Paul and the Law are inadequate. The Law does have practical significance for Paul…” (Tomson, 1990:220).
Scholars who are stoutly defending the traditional position and interpretation de-emphasise, even deny, the continuity and the role of the Law in Pauline theology. Examples of scholars who take this stance are Andrew Das (2001), Simon J. Gathercole (2002b), Stephen Westerholm (2004) amongst others. However, Frank S. Thielman (1989), who is among the defenders of the traditional position, is of the opinion that while Paul denies the validity of circumcision, food laws, and Sabbath, he does not deny the continuity of the Law. However, Thielman (1994:53) argues it is impossible to keep the Law without the help of the Spirit and therefore only those who are in Christ and have the Spirit can fulfil it.
From the discussion above, the following negative and positive conclusions can be drawn. The negative conclusion: previous studies’ assumptions, a priori theologically fuelled interpretations, are based on the
6
view of an antithetical relationship between grace and the Law. This assumption not only eschewed the matter but also confined the study of the role of the Law to atheological concern. Likewise, the categorist approach confines the understanding of the text to the theological interest of the authors within the dominant members of the author’s audience. Consequently, the role of the Law is perceived in terms of the dominant members of the community: the majority vs. the minority of Jews or Gentiles. This perception assumes that the Law has a role insofar as there are dominant members of Jews in a given community of Jesus followers who are Jews.
The positive conclusion: current research has established: 1) that the Law and grace are not antithetical (Sanders, 1977), 2) that the Law has continuity and a practical role in the New Testament (Dunn (2008), Tomson (1990), Hooker (1990:163), and Thielman (1994:53). The logical conclusion is, thus, that the role of the Law predicates on neither the majority nor the minority ethnic group within the community of Jesus followers; rather, its role is dependent on its function within the community.
1.2 The Research Question and Delimitation
Granting the above conclusions that the Law is not abrogated entirely, the general question is whether the Law has any specific role in the Jesus follower’s faith life. What kind of approach would better explain its role? It is difficult to undertake such broad questions particularly within the purview of the present study unless the focus is on a specific question. Since the New Testament contains diverse literatures that seem to be impossible to interpret into a singular theological position, in some cases, it is appropriate to study the texts that seem to oppose each other. In this case, the Gospel of Matthew and Paul’s letter to the Romans are appropriate candidates for comparison. This is so, particularly because in Romans Paul painstakingly discusses and argues about the role of the Law in the plan of salvation, and Matthew devotes a considerable portion of his narration to it. Yet, comparing the role of the Law in both texts in their entirety would still be a broad and unattainable undertaking in a study like this one, since the material is too vast.
However, both Paul in Romans 13:8-14 and Matthew in 22:34-403 concisely state the Law despite their different contexts and formulations. In addition to this, the compositions of their immediate readers are
3The reference to Romans 13:8-14 and Matthew 22:34-40 without abbreviation (i.e. Rom and Matt respectively) will be
maintained throughout the dissertation to indicate that this is the researcher’s core investigation. The abbreviated forms (Rom or Matt) will not be repeated in the discussion where the whole chapter deals with the same book but it will be included when it appears at the beginning of a sentence, introduces a subtopic or whenever a comparison is made either in the whole chapter (eg. Chapter 6) or in a given discussion.
7
most probably both Jesus followers of various origins, namely: Jews who are Christians and Gentiles who are Christians (e.g. Gundry, 1994; Moo, 1996; Tomson, 1990). For these mixed readers of Matthew and Romans the issue of the Law was a common concern so that the summary of the Law must have had an important purpose and role: both authors’ interpretation of the Law hinges on it having both theological and practical functions. The question is thus what role the summary of the Law played in the first-century Jesus follower’sexpression of faith.
Since the identity of the Jews and Gentiles is one of the major concerns within Matthew’s Gospel and the letter to the Romans, regarding their relationship to the Law, the summary of the Law in both books must have contributed to their relationship to the Law and their identity construction. Studying these relationships has not always gathered much interest in research, especially not in as far as the use of the summaries of the Law are concerned. Hence, the fundamental question of the present research is -what is the role of the summary of the Law in the Gospel of Matthew 22:34-40 and in Paul’s letters to the Romans13:8-14 in the identity construction of their respective communities of Jesus followers? Thus, the concern of the study is to investigate the role of the summary of the Law in the identity construction of Jesus followers of various origins in Matthew 22:34-40 and in Romans 13:8-14 in a Greek-infused Roman imperial world. Before this can be done, some important studies on the summary of the Law will be reviewed.
1.3 Studies on the Summary of the Law
This section deals with publications that have contributed to the study of the summary of the Law. First, studies on Romans 13: 8-14 and then studies on Matthew 22: 34-40 will be reviewed. However, since the published material on these texts is numerous for varying perspectives, only those studies that specifically focus on these two pericopae will be reviewed. With the risk of oversimplification, studies that have relatively similar stances are subsumed and will be studied together.
1.3.1 Romans 13:8-14-The summary of the Law
The summary of the Law in Romans 13:8-14 has been interpreted from different perspectives but can be grouped into four major positions.
8
1.3.1.1 Accentuating the centrality of love and the continuity of the Law
Pauline scholars like Murray (1959), Cranfield (1975), Käsemann (1980), Dunn (1988b) and Thielman (1994) unanimously agree on the centrality of love in Rom 13:8-10 with a different emphasis depending on their theological predilections. Murray (1959:160) represents the view that the summary of the Law underscores the centrality of the love commandment within the Law even if it does not replace it. Murray argues, “Paul does not say that law is love but that love fulfils the law and the law has not in the least degree been depreciated or deprived of its sanction.” His reasoning predicates on four features of the Decalogue: (1) it is permanent and has relevance; (2) it is correlative with love because it isan example of how love can fulfil the Law; (3) it is compatible with love; (4) its commandments are norms within which love operates (Murray, 1959:162). Love, therefore, is an intrinsic part of the Decalogue. Regarding the summary, for Murray (1959:162-163) “sum up” could mean repeated (recapitulated), condensed or reduced. Nevertheless, he concludes, “all the commandments receive their fulfilment and so they can all be reduced to this demand [the summary of the Law]” (Murray, 1959:162-162). Although Murray makes the commandment of love compatible within the Decalogue, he reduces the whole commandment of the Decalogue into one commandment. Yet, his major stance is that love does not wholly replace the Law but it has primacy over the other commandments and exists within the Decalogue.
Following Murray, other scholars are also of the opinion that the summary of the Law holds love as the centre within the Law. Cranfield and Sanday (1979:862) perceive the Gospel and the Law as one and refuse the notion of calling the summary of the Law as a “principle of love” insisting that love is the sum total of what the Law requires. Therefore, all the particular commandments are intact and needed. They postulate that the role of the summary of the Law is to save the believer from handling the commandments legalistically (Cranfield & Sanday, 1979:678-679). Käsemann (1980:361) also espouse the view that the summary of the Law maintains the continuity of the Law but only “the ethical portion of the Torah.” He thinks that a tradition was emerging “which regards only the moral law of the Old Testament (OT) as binding in the community” (Käsemann, 1980:361-362). Thus, Paul adopted this tradition to exhort his community. Unlike Cranfield, Käsemann, while asserting the continuity of the Law in the summary of the Law, qualifies his assertion limiting the continuity of the Law only in its moral elements. For Cranfield, love is the sum total of the requirement of the Law. Whether this means all the cultic and ritual particularities of the Law, is unclear. While Cranfield tends to presume the role of the summary is to protect Jesus followers from being legalistic, Käsemann ascribes a minimal role to it despite underscoring the continuity of the Law.
9
Dunn (1988a:782) also contends that all commandments are “covered by the summary of the Law.” For Dunn, while the summary plays the role of assuring the fact that “Paul’s Gospel was not antinomian, it asserts the continuity of the Law. What Paul is doing, in the summary of the Law, according to Dunn, is that he is delivering the Law from its ethnic particularity. While Dunn is in line with Murray regarding the centrality of love in the summary of the Law, he does not reduce all the commandments to a single demand. For him, rather, the summary of the Law transforms and transposes the commandments and serves as a guiding principle for moral practices (Dunn, 1988b:782). Dunn’s concern is to demonstrate that Paul is not against the Law. However, Dunn employs the unqualified term “covered” which is too blurred to perceive in what sense the summary of the Law included all commandments of the Law.
Thielman (1994), quoting Rom 13:8-10 in full, contends that Paul continues to use the Mosaic Law in his ethical admonitions. “In some sense, therefore, the Mosaic law continues to function for the believers as the boundary marker between conduct that pleases God (compare Rom 8:7-8) and sin (compare Rom 3:20; 7:7). It contains God’s will; the believer should fulfil it … and therefore it cannot simply be discarded.” These boundary markers are defined as “the law of faith” (Thielman, 1994:211,213). Similarly, Beker (1980) and Dunn (1988a) view the summary of the Law as the law of faith, the law of the Spirit or the law of Christ. Thielman must be commended for taking a step further in the discussion, because while other scholars focus on the love and the continuity of the Law, he is able to see that the Mosaic Law, in the form of the summary of the Law and as the will of God, continues to serve as a boundary marker. Thielman’s brief comments insinuate that the summary of the Law has a social dimension as well as an identity construction role. Unfortunately, he does not develop the concept.
1.3.1.2 Replacing the Mosaic Law
This reading is espoused by scholars like Douglas Moo (1996), and Witherington and Hyatt (2004). Douglas Moo realizes that love does not make all commandments irrelevant; therefore, to love others is not the only commandment relevant to Jesus followers. Nonetheless, he insists that Jesus followers are not under the old Mosaic Law but under the “new law” which is the law of Christ. Love is the centre of this new law. Moo (1996:816) offers two interpretive choices about the summary of the Law: “the love command replaces these [Lev 19:18; Deut 6] commandments or… it simply focuses them by setting forth a demand that is integral to each one of them (italics his).” He chooses the former and denies the intrinsic existence of love in the Mosaic Law; hence, love is the central character of the new law, that is, a Jesus follower who loves fulfils the requirements of the Law. The problem with the phrase “new law”
10
is that it is undefined. What the “Law of Christ” means in terms of “new law” is thus unclear. The characteristic which makes the Law of Christ new is also not explained.
Employing the socio-rhetorical method to interpret Romans, Witherington and Hyatt (2004) postulate that an “other law” has replaced the Mosaic Law. They understand the “other law” (Romans 13:9) as the Law of Christ, insisting that the other law, the Law of Christ, “contains the sum and substance or heart of the Mosaic Law.” When one fulfils Christ’s Law, one has accomplished the intent or aim of the previous law. One therefore, “need not go on to keep the Mosaic Law as well,” because Christ is the end of the Law (Witherington & Hyatt, 2004:316). Witherington and Hyatt (2004:316) conclude, “that ‘another Law’ has replaced and fulfils the heart of the old Mosaic Law.” Like Moo, Witherington and Hyatt are aware of the existence of other commandments and that the summary of the Law is “not a substitute for law,” but love in itself is a law which goes beyond not harming the other (Witherington & Hyatt, 2004:317). However, love is not the Mosaic Law; it is rather the new Law. The problem with Moo, Witherington and Hyatt is that they assume the Mosaic Law functions outside of the realm of love and it is just a form of dry legalism. Thus what makes the ‘new law’ new is also difficult to understand from their argument and, above all, they base their contention on dubious phrases such as ‘another law; and that Christ is the end of the Law.
1.3.1.3 Radically reducing but never abrogating the Law
Scholars who hold this position are, for example, Räisänen (1987), Hübner (1986), and Watson (2007). Räisänen has argued for the thesis that Paul has an inconsistent and oscillating view of the law. However, he contends, “the law has indeed been superseded in Christ. Yet, it would be one-sided to conclude that Paul is a ‘consistent antinomist’ who rejects the law altogether” (Räisänen, 1987:62). Though Räisänen is convinced of the fact that “there remains a ‘kernel’ law’” which Jesus followers have to obey, he rejects the opinion that the essence of the law is defined in terms of love. Instead, for Räisänen (1987:63), love is defined in terms of the Law. The focus in Rom 13:8-10 is the significance of love as defined by the Law (Räisänen, 1987:63), and the summary of the Law is, hence, a reduced form of the Law (Räisänen, 1987:27; 67-68). Likewise, Francis Watson (2007:214) reckons the summary of the Law is a “reduced law” that is “a law without circumcision, dietary restrictions, cults, or sacred days - that remains operative within the Christian community.” For Räisänen, the summary of the Law has two functions - one is to define love and the other is to reduce the Law into one commandment.
11
However, for Watson, a reduced law means the law without its cultic rituals and sacred observance. Watson (2007:288) argues that the Mosaic Law and the summary of the Law do not differ in their content but in their context. In the same line, Hans Hübner (1986:84-85) maintains the summary as a reduction within the Law. However, he further qualifies his position stating that in Rom 14 there is abrogation of the Law. Reduction and abrogation are complementary in that, while the abrogation deals with the cultic part of the Law, the reduction maintains the moral dimension thereof for the sake of those who think they are bound to keep the cultic law. Hübner (1986:85) perceives the summary not as a “concentration of the entire Torah but in fact its reduction (italics his).” Concurring with the view that love is the sum of the Law, Hübner contends that love demands legal stipulations which are abrogated. Paradoxically, however, the abrogated legal stipulation must be kept in individual cases for the sake of the neighbour (love in action). Hübner’s paradoxical approach does not do justice to the contexts of the summary of the Law and its significance as he limits its role in individual cases as well as in issues related to cultic laws. Hübner is probably right in connecting Rom 13:8-10 to 14. Nonetheless, his exegesis is questionable because he assumes that Paul summarised the law for the sake of those who think they are obliged to keep the cultic law but were offended by its abrogation. Paul did not say that the summary of the Law is to appease those who are offended by the abrogation of the cultic Law.
1.3.1.4 Supplementing the paraenesis with information
Thurén (2000:25), being dissatisfied with the new and old approaches to Pauline studies and attempting to merge them, contends that Rom 13:8-10 refers “not only to moral rules or the Decalogue, but to any ordinance in the law”. He claims that fulfilment means fulfilling its intention, purpose, or ‘demand.’ Therefore, for Thurén (2000:75), the love command is the “greater principle behind, even beyond the particular commands” and that it is “a recurrent theme in the OT”. Paul is not reducing the law to a moral code but he is using Jewish rhetoric whereby the “whole law” may be expressed “with a single commandment” (Thurén, 2000:108).
In considering this position it must be kept in mind that the role of the summary of the Law is just to provide a supplementary support to Paul’s moral principles. Therefore its use as supplementary “validates neither the whole law nor its [Decalogue] kernel,” consequently, it does not possess a continuing relevance for Christians except for on certain occasions, as resource material for moral issues (Thurén, 2000:133–134). For Thurén (2000:137), the difference between the Law and paraenesis comes from “the dichotomy of man [sic], the distinction between flesh and spirit.” While the Law evokes sin,
12
the paranaesis does not because it addresses people driven by the Spirit. While Thurén argues against the view that the summary reduces the Law, he reduces its role by relegating it to the role of a moral guide and to a useful treasure chest of information.
1.3.1.5 Conclusion
It is noticeable in the previous section that each scholar has made important contributions to explain the issue entailed in understanding Paul’s intension in summarising the Law. As the studies have shown, two conclusions have been reached so far: one, Rom 13:8-10 summarises the law, and two, it has a significant role with respect to the relationship of Jesus followers with the whole Law. However, no consensus exists among scholars as to its role, i.e. whether it replaces the Law, articulates the central intension of the Law, or reduces the Law to moral principles. Although the theological and the practical are inseparably intertwined, the above studies place a heavy theological emphasis on Rom 13:8-10 whereas the text is formulated to address the day-to-day relationship and activities of the community. Apparently, the influence of the debate over grace versus Law has precluded studies from seeing the role of the summary of the Law within its social, political and religious context. It is evident that the summary of the Law’s role as identity constructor is totally unexplored.
1.3.2 Matthew 22:34-40- The Summary of the Law
The interpretations of Matthew 22:34-40 can be grouped together in one major position.
1.3.2.1 The essence and interpretive principle of the Law
There is consensus among Matthean scholars that the summary of the Law is the essence of the Law. Gunther Bornkamm (1960:15–38) serves as a prime example of scholars who claimed that the summary of the Law is the essence of the Law. However, his student, Gerhard Barth, employing a redaction- criticism analysis, offered five conclusions about it: (1) It is the essence of the Law; (2) it validates and confirms the continuity of the Law; (3) it serves as an interpretive principle to understand the Law; (4) it keeps the whole Law; and (5) there is a possibility of deducing the whole Law from it (Barth, 1963:77– 78,85). The summary as the essence of the Law is the foundational concept from which the other four roles emanate. Therefore, Barth’s conclusion has become the foundation for studies on the summary of the Law in the Gospel of Matthew. Whether the text is studied in a broader context, or on its own, Barth’s conclusions are adopted by a number of scholars.
13
Following Bornkamm (1960) and Barth (1963), Robert Banks (1975) and Victor Furnish (1972) also regard the summary as the essence of the Law. After undertaking a comprehensive study of Jesus’ attitude towards the Law, Banks accedes to Barth’s conclusion that the summary is the essence of the Law while rejecting his conclusion that the whole Law can be deduced from it. His sole reason for rejecting Barth’s fifth conclusion is that Jesus did not put his own demand on it (Banks, 1975:234–244). The prominence of the summary is its being “the essence of the teaching of the law and the prophets” and no more than that. While Banks grants a prominent place to the summary, he, on the other hand, denies its importance. He argues that one should not give “too prominent a position … to the love-commandment in the teaching of Jesus” (Banks, 1975:234–244). Banks is probably right in rejecting the view ofsubsuming the whole Law and the prophets to the love commandments, but he is inconsistent as to the role of the summary of the Law within the teaching of Jesus.
Unlike Banks, Furnish (1972) maintains most of the conclusions of Barth on the summary of the Law in Matthew 22:30-40. He confirms “all the other statutes of the law can be deduced [from the summary] ” that “these two contain all the others” and “constitute it [the Law], or better, provide the decisive word about its meaning and thus enable its correct interpretation” (Furnish, 1972:33–34). Furnish holds to at least three conclusions of Barth, namely that the summary of the Law is (1) the essence of the law, (2) other commandments can be deduced from it, and (3) it plays a decisive role for the correct interpretation of the Law. Furnish’s uncritical acceptance of Barth’s conclusion must be rejected (particularly his assumption that other commandments can be deduced from it). Furnish’s studies are also not on the summary of the Law as such, as his approach is so comprehensive that it does not undertake a detailed study of the topic. His goal is instead to offer a broad theological base for ethical practices.
Like Banks, Loader’s (1997) studies on the Law is comprehensive. His discussion on the summary of the Law is extremely brief. He simply accentuates the interpretive role of the summary of the Law (Loader, 1997:225–237). It is unclear whether Loader reckons the summary of the Law is the essence of the Law or not. However, it is obvious that his position resonates with that of Barth on the interpretive role of the summary. Gerhardsson (1976:129–150), who devoted an article to the hermeneutical role of the summary of the Law, argues that Matthew 22:37-40 is the hermeneutic programme by which Matthew interprets the Holy Scripture and Jesus, the Messiah. The article briefly analyses the text to demonstrate how Matthew employed his hermeneutical programme regarding the Old Testament. He concludes that the summary of the Law is an interpretive lens and a continuator of the validity of the Old
14
Testament books (Gerhardsson, 1976:139–140). His work is a reaffirmation of Barth’s conclusion of the role of the summary of the Law as an interpretive principle.
Other works, such as Luise Schottroff (1978) and John Piper (1979), are specifically concerned with love for the enemy. The summary of the Law is studied in the light of it; therefore, there is no direct discussion of it in its own right. Pheme Perkins’ (1982) approach to the love command is mainly dependent on the works of her predecessors, particularly Piper. Perkins’ concern is ethical and her approach is broad. She briefly comments that Jesus summarised the Law to “answer the challenges about the intent of the law” (Perkins, 1982:25). In the introduction of her book, she claims to show the role of the love commandments in identity formation as she states that: “Later, we will see the role that love commandments played in shaping the identity of the developing Christian community” (Perkins, 1982:15). Yet, no clear attempt is made in the book to show the role of the love command in identity formation. Her concern, in reality, is to provide ethical guidelines and not with identity formation. Unlike the above-mentioned scholars, Terence L. Donald (1995) introduces a different methodological approach to the topic. He applied sociology of knowledge and cognitive dissonance theory to Matthew 20:40, to examine its contribution to the understanding of Matthew’s Gospel. Donaldson (1995:12) recognizes the weakness of traditional redaction criticism and proposes a “textured form of redaction criticism” to apply a social scientific method to the text. He finds that Matt 20:40 falls “into one of the main categories of dissonance-reducing strategies, that of explanatory or hermeneutical programs providing a framework of interpretation within which the tension between dissonant cognitions can be released, or at least deflected” (Donaldson, 1995:708). For Donaldson, therefore, the summary of the Law mediates or lessens the tension within the community by playing an interpretive role. Donaldson’s contribution encourages the study to take a new route to find the significance of the summary of the Law. In the end his study is however just a reinforcement of the conclusions of Barth through a new approach, especially the interpretive role of the summary of the Law.
Warren Carter (2008:30–44), however, makes an opprobrious remark about Matthean studies for assuming the Gospel is only a religious text and for taking a myopic approach to it. Carter undertakes a metonymic approach to Matthew 22:34-40. He convincingly argues that the text in question is a counter-imperial practice against the so-called religious leaders. The commands in Matthew 22:34-40, according to Carter, are dangerous because “they are socially transformative” (Carter, 2008:44). In doing so, Carter attempts to rescue the text from a confined and a short-sighted interpretation of the text by exposing it to the wider context within the Gospel itself, as well as to the matrix of the world within which it was
15
produced and read. Carter’s contribution must be commended for placing the texts in their social, political, economic, and religious contexts of its day.
1.3.2.2 Conclusion
The studies on Matthew 22:34-40 are limited to their interpretive role and their role as accentuating the essence of love within the Law (except Carter’s work). However, these studies’contributions should not be minimized. Scholars who studied the texts have confirmed that the summary of the Law has an important role in interpreting Matthew’s understanding of the Law and a transformative vision for its social vision. However, its role as identity constructor for Jesus followers within its context has not been studied at all.
1.3.3 Paul and Matthew on the Law: comrades or foes?
It can be stated that an important difference between Matthew and Paul is their understanding of the Law. Studies on Paul’s and Matthew’s understanding of the Law support this fact.4 How the differences are
interpreted, however, depends on one’s interpretive lens. Most of the studies on Paul’s and Matthew’s understanding of the Law and their relationship are based on comparing the theological angles of Matthew and Paul. Yet, no consensus has been achieved in such studies.
Since David Sim (2002) has given a review of the studies on the topic, there is no need to belabour the point. Sim and others summarised the major positions: (1) Matthew is an anti-Pauline text (Sim, 2002; Brandon, 1957). Brandon first conceived this position with which Sim agrees. (2) Matthew and Paul are theologically close to each other. Scholars who consent with this position, despite differences in their arguments, are Davies (1990), Goulder (1974) and Meier (2009). (3) Matthew and Paul were different, but complementary: Mohrlang (1984), France (1987) and Luz (1993) hold this position (Sim, 2002:772– 774).
Recently, Sim (1998:188–211; 2002:774–781; 2007:325–343; 2008:377–392) has vehemently contended that Matthew is anti-Paul. In doing so he admits that his proposal is a renaissance of Brandon’s thesis. Considering that it is David Sim who has resurrected and extended the thesis of Brandon, this section will focus on his articles. His articles have contributed to placing the issues in the limelight of
4 E.g. (Brandon (1957); Sim (2002; 2007; 2008; 2009); Davies (1990); Goulder (1974);Mohrlang (1984); France (1987);
16
scholarly discussion. In his articles (except in the first one), Sim strongly argued that Matthew is anti-Pauline with regard to their respective perspectives on the Law.
Sim claims that Matthew was propagating a Law-observant mission to both the Jews and the Gentiles, while Paul, on the other hand, was promoting a Law-free mission among the Gentiles (Sim, 2008:390). He writes, “Matthew was engaged in a bitter and sustained polemic against Paul himself” (Sim, 2002:777). His arguments hinge on three texts from the Gospel of Matthew: Matt 5:17-19, Matt 7:13-23, and Matt 16:17, and on his reconstruction of the history and social setting of the Matthean community. For Matthew, according to Sim, every part of the Law is valid and therefore must be obeyed and taught until the parousia whereas, for Paul, the Law is functional until the resurrection of Jesus Christ (Sim, 2002:779). Consequently, Matthew and Paul are theologically antagonistic, particularly in light of Matt 7:13- 23, which for Sim, demonstrates Matthew’s anti-Pauline stance. Coupling Matt 7: 24-23 with Matt16:17, Sim (2002:779) advances his cases by ascribing the rock to Peter (Matt 16:17). The two houses in Matt 7:24-23 refer to the two traditions. That is, the house built upon the rock represents the Petrine tradition or the law-observant community whereas the house which is built on the sand represents the Pauline tradition or law-free community. He arrives at the conclusion that “the evangelist [Matthew] sought to challenge or deny Paul’s claim that he was divinely commissioned to conduct a mission independently of the Jerusalem church. Matthew portrays Peter instead as the recipient of a divine revelation and as the foundation of Jesus’ church with the authority to match. The result is that Paul’s later claim to have had a similar experience to that of Peter looks hollow, implausible and derivative” (Sim, 2009b:418).
Although Sim’s conclusion might be conceivable, his arguments are not convincing. At least four reasons can be noted for Sim’s unconvincing arguments. First, Sim does not define his understanding of the term
Torah. Since he argues that Matthew is a sect (Sim, 1995:36), he should have explained how Matthew
understands the Torah differently from other sects. If the Matthean community is one of the sects that differs from and avoids those of “formative Judaism”, and stands against Paul, then what is the Torah in the light of Matthew’s Gospel? If the Matthean community conceded to the validity of the Torah, why would Mathew’s community reject the coalition in “formative Judaism”? In fact, Sim has pointed out that “the Matthean community follows the interpretation of Jesus who came to fulfil the Law and not to abolish it (5.17) …and messianic exegesis of Jesus is guided by the principle of love of God and neighbour (22.34-40; cf 7.12)” (Sim, 1995:37). Yet, he does not discuss the implication of this statement and its difference from the Pauline definition of Torah in his arguments in his later articles. E. P. Sanders
17
(1992:257) writes, “… this [Matt 7.12] is meant to epitomize the whole law, though in terms of content it summarises only the second table.” If this is so, what was Matthew’s concept of Torah? Sim’s argument that Matthew demands “the observance of the Mosaic Law in full” (Sim, 2008:388) is also questionable, because no empirical evidence is given to demonstrate the claim and no convincing explanation concerning the meaning of observing the law in full is offered.
The second problem is methodological. Sim’s approach to the issue is to focus on selective texts that seem obviously to be contradicting some Pauline teachings. He also did not demonstrate how the whole teachings of Matthew’s Gospel are organized against Pauline teachings. He did not discuss the texts he selected in terms of Matthew’s interpretation of Torah. Instead, he compared and contrasted texts that seem to be contradicting Pauline texts. As a result, in his arguments the agreement between Matthean texts and Pauline texts is ignored.
Third, Sim interprets the relationship of Matthew and Paul through the window of first century conflicts, contentions, and arguments. He does not seem to be open to the possibility of concession being made between first-century communities of Jesus followers. Other scriptural narrations demonstrate that concessions were made (e.g. in Acts 15). Paul, for example, also affirms that what he preached and what other Apostles preached is the same Gospel (1 Cor 15:11). In Galatians 2, Paul argues that an agreement had already been reached between him and the Jerusalem church and that he had received a confirmation from the pillars of the church about his teaching. Paul further rebuked Peter for his hypocritical actions and not for the kind of Gospel he preached. Paul opposed their apparent hypocrisy because it damages their credibility (Gal 2:13). Therefore, Sim does not give adequate weight to the possibility of an agreement among Matthew and Paul’s followers or interpreters.
Fourth, Sim did not discuss the genres and the mega-theme of each book and their effects on interpretation. There is no explicit evidence that substantiates the idea that the central issue for Matthew in his Gospel is Paul’s teaching of the Law, as Matthew predominantly focuses on the person and the work of Jesus, the Messiah. From Sim’s argument, it however seems that Paul’s theology is at the centre of Matthew’s Gospel. Therefore, all of the above drawbacks in the discussion of the articles call for a deeper study on the interpretation and understanding of the Law on the part of both Matthew and Paul.
It is understood that the debate above is the result of the major interpretive assumption started by Augustine and standardised by Bultman, Käsemann and Bornkamm. Notwithstanding the different conclusions arrived at by each scholar, the underpinning assumption is that grace and the Law are in an antithetical relationship. Particularly in the works of Sim this assumption is clear. For Sim, Matthew
